Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 3

Yuva Jet – Overturn and draftify.There's near unanimous consensus that while A7 wasn't valid, it wouldn't stand a chance at AfD.Thus the article-creator is encouraged to develop the article in draft-space and move to main-space, once suitable enough, probably through AFC. – Winged Blades^Godric 14:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Had reliable sources an did justify notability also I did contest the deletion on the talk page and got no reply. Bingobro (Chat) 04:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From https://www.facebook.com/pg/YuvaJetlinesAirways/about/:
INCEPTION in the year 2017, YuvaJet Airways � a "Low Cost" Scheduled Commuter Airlines in India, Looking forward to start operation by June 2018.
The Facebook page lists https://www.yuvajet.com/ as the airline's website. But https://www.yuvajet.com/ is currently inaccessible. In my searches for "Yuva Jet", I could not find significant coverage about Yuva Jet.
Bingobro (talk · contribs), what reliable sources did the article cite?
Since the airline has yet to start operations and I could not find sources about the subject, I recommend not restoring it to mainspace for now. But I support moving Yuva Jet to either Bingobro's userspace or draftspace so that it can be easily restored once the airline begins operations and once sources write about it in significant detail.
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources would be ch-aviation and CAPA.Bingobro (Chat) 06:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Do check in my sandbox I have a references on it there. Bingobro (Chat) 08:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I reviewed User:Bingobro/sandbox/Yuva Jet and found sources like these three:

I think these sources may not be enough to pass an AfD, but their presence is enough to get the company over the bar of {{db-a7}} ("an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject"). I recommend overturning the speedy deletion.

Cunard (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning overturn. (I reviewed the article when it was in the NPP queue). Airline companies is smth which one can not start without investing billions first, and whereas many of them never materialize, those which make some appearance in media have a good chance to be notable. Here we can indeed go to AfD and see whether we already have enough sources for notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup as the creator I'm all in with overturn.Maybe the page could have been tagged with issues but CSD was quite far fetched. Bingobro (Chat) 13:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn CSD, but mostly moot. I agree that we shouldn't have articles about planned airlines, but that's a question to be decided at AfD. I do note that Template:Airlines of India lists a half-dozen planned airlines, so (yeah, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF) why not this one? Again, AfD is the right forum. I doubt this would survive AfD, but WP:A7 is a stretch. There's enough in the article and sources to constitute a WP:Credible claim of significance. So, we should userfy this. Except (and here's why it's moot), that it's already at User:Bingobro/sandbox/Yuva Jet, so there's nothing to do. Maybe history merge those two, to eliminate the content fork. Oh, and BTW, you shouldn't WP:CANVASS, as you did here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, if WP:CSD doesn't apply, undeleting it and bringing it to AfD seems like the right thing. If we're going to overturn the CSD, we should overturn it, not implicitly endorse it with forced userfication. But, still, fix the content fork. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thanks for telling about WP:CANVASS I didn't know about it. Bingobro (Chat) 14:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn CSD and userify if the author desires, or AfD if not and anyone else feels like nominating it, per RoySmith. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it for deletion, but I have no objection to sending it to afd instead . DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

overturn this isn't a good CSD choice, but I don't see how it has much of a chance at AfD. That said, it (and the author) should be given a chance. I imagine if this does get restored, I'll send it to AfD if no one beats me first, but I'd want to read the article first... Hobit (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tempundeleted for review -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sources are probably above _my_ bar for AfD. Article is really stubby, but eh. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I can see why it got speedied, however on occasion my judgement on planned 'events' has been faulty, so it should go to AFD and the refs get more scrutiny. I still think it'll be delete but it should have another chance. Szzuk (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very sceptical about this. Either this is a hoax or a company which has yet to even apply for a licence. According to this "In a statement, the nascent Indian carrier said it would shortly apply to the Indian Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGCA) to convert its Air Services Permit (ASP) from Non-Scheduled to Scheduled operations ahead of the start of certification." However, I checked the DGCA permit list (both non scheduled and scheduled and I cannot find any entry about YuvaJet. I even tried to search for the founder in the Non Scheduled POI list but wasn't able to find.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that it would be proper to send it to AfD (where it will be deleted), I personally think keeping it as a draft is a much better idea. An AfD will only result in deletion of the entire content. In case the company starts operations, we will have to write an article from scratch again. So I guess it is better to keep it as a draft and only publish it when the company actually starts operations or gets the DGCA approval.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this actually makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Highly unlikely a hoax what are ch-aviation and CAPA idiots to add anything without verifying? Bingobro (Chat) 12:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.